Why is Langley Enrollment Going Down?

[Anonymous]

I agree, I think families are aging. Forestville ES, which is in the Langley pyramid, has seen its enrollment continually shrinking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I agree, I think families are aging. Forestville ES, which is in the Langley pyramid, has seen its enrollment continually shrinking.

It sounds like FCPS just needs to wait for the area to turn over, or perhaps move some Tysons apartments to Langley as has been suggested.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is the neighborhood getting older? By that, I mean are the kids just aging out and there are fewer families with school aged kids?

We've been a Langley family for over ten years and this does seem to be the trend - the kids are simply growing up. Great Falls/McLean aren't high turnover areas, so families stay here for a long time, even after the kids have moved on.

Yup. Things are always cyclical this way. Arlington should look and learn.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The appeal if living far away on large plots of land ended.

Sorry, don't think so.

Most rich families are now preferring closer in locations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The appeal if living far away on large plots of land ended.

Sorry, don't think so.

Most rich families are now preferring closer in locations.

This. Rich, young families want to be in Kalorama or 14th St . . . Not out in a dated McMansion

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The appeal if living far away on large plots of land ended.

Sorry, don't think so.

Most rich families are now preferring closer in locations.

This. Rich, young families want to be in Kalorama or 14th St . . . Not out in a dated McMansion

The number of people buying million-plus properties near 14th Street is de minimus compared to the more affluent NoVa zip codes. There are a lot of people buying expensive properties in 20008, which includes Kalorama, but it's not off the charts and the inventory isn't that big. To put it in perspective, here are the number of million-plus sales over the past two years in various zips:

22101/McLean - 417
22207/North Arlington - 383
22066/Great Falls - 242
20008/DC - 212
22102/McLean - 205
22180/Vienna - 170
22182/Vienna - 160
* * *
20011/DC - 36

Since Langley pulls primarily from 22066 and 22102, along with bits of 22101 and other zip codes, it seems like there may be some turnover taking place now, but the kids just aren't showing up in the Langley pyramid. But you'd have to think some of the buyers are younger - would you really buy a five-bedroom house on two acres in Great Falls if you didn't have kids?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The appeal if living far away on large plots of land ended.

Sorry, don't think so.

Most rich families are now preferring closer in locations.

This. Rich, young families want to be in Kalorama or 14th St . . . Not out in a dated McMansion

The number of people buying million-plus properties near 14th Street is de minimus compared to the more affluent NoVa zip codes. There are a lot of people buying expensive properties in 20008, which includes Kalorama, but it's not off the charts and the inventory isn't that big. To put it in perspective, here are the number of million-plus sales over the past two years in various zips:

22101/McLean - 417
22207/North Arlington - 383
22066/Great Falls - 242
20008/DC - 212
22102/McLean - 205
22180/Vienna - 170
22182/Vienna - 160
* * *
20011/DC - 36

Since Langley pulls primarily from 22066 and 22102, along with bits of 22101 and other zip codes, it seems like there may be some turnover taking place now, but the kids just aren't showing up in the Langley pyramid. But you'd have to think some of the buyers are younger - would you really buy a five-bedroom house on two acres in Great Falls if you didn't have kids?

Whatevs. I'm not talking 1m. In the 2m+ market, nova is dead (crickets). Kent, Kalorama, etc are where the young money is flowing. No one wants to drive that far, no good food, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The appeal if living far away on large plots of land ended.

Sorry, don't think so.

Most rich families are now preferring closer in locations.

This. Rich, young families want to be in Kalorama or 14th St . . . Not out in a dated McMansion

The number of people buying million-plus properties near 14th Street is de minimus compared to the more affluent NoVa zip codes. There are a lot of people buying expensive properties in 20008, which includes Kalorama, but it's not off the charts and the inventory isn't that big. To put it in perspective, here are the number of million-plus sales over the past two years in various zips:

22101/McLean - 417
22207/North Arlington - 383
22066/Great Falls - 242
20008/DC - 212
22102/McLean - 205
22180/Vienna - 170
22182/Vienna - 160
* * *
20011/DC - 36

Since Langley pulls primarily from 22066 and 22102, along with bits of 22101 and other zip codes, it seems like there may be some turnover taking place now, but the kids just aren't showing up in the Langley pyramid. But you'd have to think some of the buyers are younger - would you really buy a five-bedroom house on two acres in Great Falls if you didn't have kids?

Whatevs. I'm not talking 1m. In the 2m+ market, nova is dead (crickets). Kent, Kalorama, etc are where the young money is flowing. No one wants to drive that far, no good food, etc.

I think you want to turn this into a thread about expensive real estate in DC, rather than about what is impacting Langley's enrollment. However, if you look at sales in the two million-plus market over the past two years, you'd still find the Langley areas are up there with the zip codes that include Kent and Kalorama (the areas near 14th Street aren't that expensive):

20008/DC (includes Kalorama) - 77
22101/McLean - 76
20016/DC (includes Kent) -57
22102/McLean - 56
22066/Great Falls - 44
22207/North Arlington - 28

There is more inventory in the two million-plus range on the market in the Langley areas now than in 20008 and 20016 (about 100 houses in 22066 and 22102 combined, compared to about 45 in 20008 and 20016), but a lot of people in that price range would be sending their kids to privates anyway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The appeal if living far away on large plots of land ended.

Sorry, don't think so.

Most rich families are now preferring closer in locations.

This. Rich, young families want to be in Kalorama or 14th St . . . Not out in a dated McMansion

The number of people buying million-plus properties near 14th Street is de minimus compared to the more affluent NoVa zip codes. There are a lot of people buying expensive properties in 20008, which includes Kalorama, but it's not off the charts and the inventory isn't that big. To put it in perspective, here are the number of million-plus sales over the past two years in various zips:

22101/McLean - 417
22207/North Arlington - 383
22066/Great Falls - 242
20008/DC - 212
22102/McLean - 205
22180/Vienna - 170
22182/Vienna - 160
* * *
20011/DC - 36

Since Langley pulls primarily from 22066 and 22102, along with bits of 22101 and other zip codes, it seems like there may be some turnover taking place now, but the kids just aren't showing up in the Langley pyramid. But you'd have to think some of the buyers are younger - would you really buy a five-bedroom house on two acres in Great Falls if you didn't have kids?

Whatevs. I'm not talking 1m. In the 2m+ market, nova is dead (crickets). Kent, Kalorama, etc are where the young money is flowing. No one wants to drive that far, no good food, etc.

Snicker. Your post just reeks of too-cool, hipster ironic millennial. Yeeeeeesh.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Langley with apartment kids???? Say it ain't so. Langley snowflakes should never have to be exposed to poors! That's why you buy in Langley-- so your child can exist in a bubble.

It's one area of the county where FCPS ought to create attendance islands. You could have apartments now in the Marshall and McLean districts rezoned for Langley and they'd still be closer to Langley than many homes now zoned for Langley are.

There are lot of apartments and condos in the Franklin Sherman boundary. I'm sure this would help.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Langley with apartment kids???? Say it ain't so. Langley snowflakes should never have to be exposed to poors! That's why you buy in Langley-- so your child can exist in a bubble.

It's one area of the county where FCPS ought to create attendance islands. You could have apartments now in the Marshall and McLean districts rezoned for Langley and they'd still be closer to Langley than many homes now zoned for Langley are.

There are lot of apartments and condos in the Franklin Sherman boundary. I'm sure this would help.

Franklin Sherman is less than 3% FARMS. They could move more of Sherman to Langley if they want to boost the enrollment, but it would not increase the diversity very much.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The appeal if living far away on large plots of land ended.

This. And even if that subset of buyers doesn't want to live in DC, they'd probably much prefer Arlington, McLean, or Alexandria over Great Falls.

When we were looking, our realtor tried to show us several houses in Great Falls, and I shut that down very quickly. People want walkability and transit, and Great Falls offers zero of that.

[Anonymous]

We had our pick of new homes in Great Falls, McLean, Falls Church and Arlington.

We decided on buying in McLean closer in because it was the perfect blend of house size and distance from everything.

Great Falls was way too far, Arlington was close in but the lots were much smaller and Falls Church was also much smaller lots.

The appeal of living far away on septic, a well and mostly electric heating/cooking never really appealed to me and that's why we skipped Great Falls.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The appeal if living far away on large plots of land ended.

This. And even if that subset of buyers doesn't want to live in DC, they'd probably much prefer Arlington, McLean, or Alexandria over Great Falls.

When we were looking, our realtor tried to show us several houses in Great Falls, and I shut that down very quickly. People want walkability and transit, and Great Falls offers zero of that.

Major generalization. Perhaps you do, but those of us who actually live in Great Falls chose it precisely because of its large lots, privacy, huge green spaces, and no metro/urban center. Great Falls attracts people who enjoy a more rural feel and don't want to be living on top of one another in a more urban area. You couldn't pay me to live any closer to DC, and especially not Arlington or Alexandria.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We had our pick of new homes in Great Falls, McLean, Falls Church and Arlington.

We decided on buying in McLean closer in because it was the perfect blend of house size and distance from everything.

Great Falls was way too far, Arlington was close in but the lots were much smaller and Falls Church was also much smaller lots.

The appeal of living far away on septic, a well and mostly electric heating/cooking never really appealed to me and that's why we skipped Great Falls.

?? We have county water and gas heat/stoves. This is 2015. The septic I could do without also, but then again, the tradeoff are large lots.